Well, let me just amend that by saying that I know that Russ Freeman
started the rippingtons and is still a member...
> Whether or not these groups are really "jazz" is often debated.
Not by me. But I'm not much of a fan of pre-1975 jazz music.
> For classic performances of groups led by Miles Davis,
Ok, so I scanned my hard drive for stuff by Miles Davis. I have "Miles
Ahead (1957) and "The man with the horn (1981)".
I'm listening to the first track of Miles Ahead. Big-band sound,
sort-of a broadway feel to it. Lots of brass. Not much of memorable
melody - nothing I could play over in my head. Mostly improvisation.
Once it's over, I'd be hard pressed to imagine the song in my mind. I'm
listening to the other tracks. Sounds like slow ballroom dance music.
It's pleasant sounding, but it just doesn't capture my imagination or
interest for very long.
So now I'm listening to Man with the horn. First track (Fat time).
Very different feel (as you might expect). Pretty much a continuous
trumpet solo with edgey, nervous electric guitar in the background, a
marching drum beat. I'm not a fan of this either, but it holds my
interest longer than the 1957 album. I fast-forward through the second
track.
Now the third track (shout) I immediately recognize - I've played it
before. It's something I can follow. There is a recognizable melody.
It's a somewhat simple melody, it repeats alot, but it's catchy. The
rest of the tracks on this album don't interest me very much.
> Art Blakey, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, etc., most fans would
> certainly be able to tell you who is on them. The difference is
> that a group like Spyro Gyra is much more heavily arranged, so
> the individual sounds/styles of the particular members isn't as
> easily identified.
I don't see it as a problem, or - I'm not looking for an explanation as
to why its not easy to identify artists in some cases and not others
(although what you say makes sense).
I don't listen to music by trying to identify the players. If I have
enough experience listening to certain players such that I'm reasonably
sure I can hear them in some new material, well that's nice but it
doesn't mean I'm going to like the track because of it.
> But you can listen to a Miles recording and tell whether it's
> Jimmy Cobb or Tony Williams on drums just by how it sounds,
Something like that has no impact on how (or whether) I enjoy a given
track.
> because the players are much more heavily improvised...
That's basically the issue. The extent to which a given track contains
improvisation vs an arranged melody.
As someone who once did play in a competitive high-school jazz band,
there is nothing like the energy that comes from playing.
But as a listener, I'm more critical of a piece or a performance that
gives something to the listener and is not all about the
self-gratification that comes from playing - and especially playing
improv or free-form solos. That's why I don't like 80% of Chick Corea's
stuff, but a perfect example of a Corea track I really like is "No
Mystery".
If a piece wasn't structured enough with a recognizable melody that I
can re-play in my head hours or days after I've heard a track, then the
piece really gave me nothing, but I'm sure it was a thrill for the
artists performing it at the time.
So I'm listening now to some Spyro Gyra. From Morning Dance (1979) the
track Heliopolis is something that's comparable to the brassy sound from
Miles Davis. I'd like to hear an argument as to why it wouldn't be
classified as jazz.
Now I'm listening to Freefall from the album Breakout (1986). I think
this is a great jazz track. So is Doubletake or Whirlwind. (I must be a
sucker for the xylophone).
There are a few artists that are really good at improv and can create
really interesting and memorable solos. Pat Metheny for one. As I scan
through the music on my computer I'm listening now to Rainbow Shadows by
Nelson Rangell. Very dynamic piece for a flute player.